Standing Committee B

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Gambling Bill

Clause 248 - Preventing repetitive play

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
Question again proposed.

Richard Caborn: Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Gale, for what will, I hope, be a productive sitting, as it always is under your guidance.
I was answering a question from the hon. Member for—

Malcolm Moss: North-East Cambridgeshire. I must have made quite an impact.

Richard Caborn: I will recite the hon. Gentleman's question to make sure that I have got it factually correct. He asked whether I can give further detail on how the Government intend to bring in the one-hour rule I mentioned this morning.
We intend to introduce regulations to ensure that no more than one lottery per hour may be promoted on a set of premises. At this stage, we do not intend the regulations to apply to all sets of premises or all types of lottery. We are simply trying to prevent a fast-draw lottery, the type that I referred to, being offered in unsuitable premises. 
We are therefore considering the need to restrict the frequency of lotteries in pubs and clubs, although that may change if it appears during our consultation that other premises should also be covered. I hope that that explains the one-hour rule to the hon. Gentleman. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 248 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 249 - Exclusion of the National Lottery

Amendment made: No. 31, in clause 249, page 110, line 36, leave out 
'a lottery which forms part of'.—[Mr. Caborn.] 
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Moss: I shall be brief. As the clause refers to the national lottery, it gives me an opportunity to ask the Minister whether he feels that, as the Bill stands, the consultation arrangements between the gambling commission and the national lottery are as good as they should be. There is a feeling, certainly on the part of the National Lottery Commission, that there should be a statutory definition of that consultation process.  We made an attempt earlier to tighten the provisions, and the Government rejected it.
It is obviously important to have input from the National Lottery Commission, particularly if there is an expansion of gambling across the board. There is only a finite resource to go into gambling. It may well be that the number of players of the lottery diminishes, the amount going into the lottery diminishes and that has a knock-on effect on the money for good causes. So, the relationship between the gambling commission—what it stands for and what it does—and the running of the national lottery is important. The National Lottery Commission said that it would like the Bill to provide for a much stronger relationship.

Richard Caborn: I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 29, headed ''Consultation with National Lottery Commission'', which outlines how the consultation between the national lottery and the gambling commission should take place. I do not know what more the hon. Gentleman is asking for, but I think that he knows that there was discussion about whether the national lottery should have been part of the terms of reference.
I think that the hon. Gentleman also knows that there was much discussion about whether we need a national lottery. We took the political decision that we do: the national lottery is a great institution, so we have kept it in its current form. A new licence will come up and be consulted on. The Government believe that there are mechanisms for consultation with the national lottery. If the hon. Gentleman wants to tells us of other areas for concern that we have not addressed, we will consider them.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. We are aware of clause 29 and so is the National Lottery Commission, but its view is that the clause is too weak. I was simply expressing its opinion, as addressed to me, that the commission would like the provision strengthened in some way. The onus seems to be on the gambling commission to reach out and consult with the National Lottery Commission. We are not suggesting that the Government place a lottery commissioner on the gambling commission to make sure that there is always a voice at the table. The National Lottery Commission simply said, ''We're not happy. The provision is not as strong as we'd like.'' All I wanted from the Minister was confirmation that he felt that the consultation as set out in clause 29 was adequate to satisfy all requirements. I am simply acting on a request that was made to us to raise the issue.

Richard Caborn: I can only say that I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that clause 29, particularly subsection (1), deals with the matter, and there is a fall-back position in subsection (2) that the gambling commission has to comply with any direction of the Secretary of State, which may be of a general or specific nature, to consult the national lottery. If there were any problems and the national lottery believed that it was not being consulted in the proper way, the Secretary of State could therefore compel the gambling commission to carry out such  That would act as a safety valve in the eventuality raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 249, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 250 - Territorial application

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: I want to ask about one aspect of territorial application. I hope that the Minister and those who advise him will recognise that I am not being critical in raising the point; I am genuinely trying, I hope, to help the Government. When I read the clause, I noticed subsection (1), which says that the provisions apply
''to anything done in relation to a lottery—
(a) in Great Britain, or
(b) by the provision of, or by means of remote gambling equipment situated in Great Britain.''
Subsection (2) says that it is immaterial whether it is promoted wholly or partly in the UK or outside the UK. The Minister told me before lunch that the Government are genuinely concerned about the type of lotteries that might be very addictive. He gave a helpful answer explaining why they were worried. 
In my experience, a number of the sort of lotteries that the Minister and the Government are worried about relate entirely to matters that take place abroad. If the Government foresee a real problem—taking the Minister's earlier point about using the Bill for future-proofing—and we are limiting the provisions to lotteries in Great Britain even if they might be promoted wholly or partly in other parts of the UK, I am worried about the many perfectly lawful lotteries already relating to overseas commissions for which tickets are sold in the UK. 
It struck me that it might be wiser for the Government to think between now and Report, or before the Bill goes to another place, about widening the territorial application so that it is clear that when the lottery is promoted—even if that takes place abroad—and tickets are sold anywhere in the UK, it is the sale of the tickets in the UK that is the issue, rather than the lottery being promoted wholly or partly in the UK. I hope that, if there is some benefit in widening the drafting of the clause, the Minister will say that he will think about it.

Richard Caborn: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, if lotteries are promoted here, they need a licence. Clause 236(2) makes that clear. If people sell tickets—we are talking about lotteries being promoted—they need a licence to do so. If they do not, they will be acting illegally. I do not know how people go about buying tickets for other lotteries. If the lottery is promoted here, a licence is required, which comes under those conditions. As with any other piece of gambling equipment, we hope that we do two things: first, protect the punter and, secondly, say to people outside this country that the products that they are betting on have integrity and  transparency, and are registered accordingly. It is important to keep to what was done in the Gaming Act 1968.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 250 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 251 - Members' club

Mark Prisk: I, too, welcome you to this afternoon's deliberations, Mr. Gale. This is not a lengthy point, but it is important. Earlier this week we discussed under clause 219 the fact that gaming machines and the activities related to them have changed significantly since the 1968 Act, and that real and virtual activities are included in the definition of the activities that the Government seek to regulate.
In considering this clause, which deals with members' clubs, I had assumed that there would be a clear indication that the definition referred to a physical club, as most Members of this institution would understand the term. Unless I have missed it—hopefully the Minister can guide me on this—I cannot see in either of the subsections anything that specifically suggests that the clause refers to a club as we might conventionally consider it. 
On the face of it, that does not appear to be an earth-shattering worry, but on the other hand there could be an issue. There could be uncertainty about the nature of the clubs that the Government seek to regulate. Clearly, as the explanatory notes suggest, the kind of club that the Government have in mind is something along the lines of the Royal British Legion. I know that all Members will share our wish to ensure that those excellent clubs are able to continue successfully. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear.''] However, there may be other forms of club that the Government may or may not intend to include. That is currently unclear from the clause. 
My first thought is something along the lines of an investment club, where people come together and meet in one another's homes to discuss possible decisions of that nature. Some may suggest that investment in gambling has a certain similarity, but I would not dream of making that suggestion about our financial services industry. However, it is not that that club does not exist or does not meet; it is just that it does not meet in a specific location. 
The second kind of club that crosses my mind is virtual. Increasingly, people communicate not by coming together physically, but by using the internet to get together as a club or society. The heart of my question is: can the Minister clarify whether there is a physical characteristic to the definition? Without wishing to take us too far away from the essence of the Bill, I ask whether there is—dare I say it—a spatial dimension to the definition, and if so, why has that not been included in the Bill.

Richard Caborn: For the record, I shall explain the clause and what is meant by a ''members' club'' in the Bill. The Bill updates, but preserves, the essential elements of the current definition. A members' club  must be established and conducted wholly or mainly for purposes others than gaming, unless the gaming is of a prescribed kind and facilities are provided for no other kind of gaming. Under the present law, bridge and whist clubs benefit from that allowance. We will continue that under the Bill by specifically allowing it under this clause.
A members' club must also be established and conducted for the benefit of members and not as a commercial enterprise. It should have at least 25 members and not be temporary in nature. That ensures that clubs are not set up for a short time to avoid gambling regulations. 
In answer to the specific questions that I was asked, entitlements are for club premises in part 12. There has to be a bricks and mortar premises. An investment club would need specific premises. Clauses 256(2) and 258(2) make it clear that permits can be granted only for one premises.

Mark Prisk: If 25 members of the Hertford Royal British Legion got together in their homes to engage in gaming, would that constitute a members' club?

Richard Caborn: No.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 251 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 252 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 253 - Miners' welfare institute

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Bob Russell: This question is more appropriate to the Minister's part of the country than mine. I am not aware of any mines in Essex.
The serious point that I want to make is that, with changing circumstances in the coal mining industry in various parts of the country, the number of live coal mines has been dramatically reduced. I am trying to look to the future: has any thought been given to how the miners' welfare institutes provision in clause 253 may be accommodated because the clubs will still exist, albeit not with present miners, and the past miners will eventually become very past? Is there an arrangement by which the benefits of the miners' welfare institutes can be continued thereafter for the new non-mining generation?

Eric Illsley: To follow the hon. Gentleman's points, I am not sure what very past miners would be like, but in my neck of the woods we would call them retired miners.
The point is well worth making that miners' welfare institutes continue in existence, but with a reduced rate of funding because the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, to which subsection (4) refers and which is now a charitable trust, has had reduced funding for considerable time. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to ask his colleagues in the Government for  more attention to be given to the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, particularly in respect of social workers who may be needed to look after those retired miners who develop problem gambling habits when the bigger, super-casinos arrive.

Richard Caborn: My hon. Friend seems to think that there will be one in the middle of Barnsley. He will be able to use all the expertise from ex-miners there.
The answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is yes. In response to my hon. Friend, and to digress a little, the miners' welfare clubs play a fantastic role not just in the area that we are discussing but in the whole sporting arena. We are considering how we could help some of those ex-miners and their welfare clubs to do in the wider community what they now do and not to be driven just by the mining industry. 
Clause 253 defines miners' welfare institute and miners' representatives for the purposes of the Bill. Those definitions have been updated since the previous legislation in consultation with the appropriate groups connected with mining and ex-mining areas. Such institutes and associations were established for social recreation purposes. An association may take one of two legal forms: either it must be managed by a group made up of at least two thirds of miners' representatives or it must operate from charity premises and have received money from the range of mining charity organisations listed in the clause. 
A miner's representative is defined as a person who is nominated or appointed by a person who employs or has employed individuals in the course of a coal mining business, by the trust known as the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, by an organisation representing persons who are or were employed in connection with coal mining, or if the person concerned is or was employed in connection with coal mining. 
That is the explanation for clause 253. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 253 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 254 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 255 - Section 254: supplementary

Bob Russell: I beg to move amendment No. 348, in clause 255, page 113, line 31, at end insert—
'(e) not unfairly discriminate between different classes of club or institute when making such regulations.'. 
The amendment has been carefully worded so that I can ingratiate myself with Labour members of the Committee, Conservative members of the Committee and, hopefully, my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Southport (Dr. Pugh). 
The clause as drafted commits members' clubs, commercial clubs and miners' welfare institutes to providing certain facilities for gaming without the need for any express authorisation. In order to qualify for the exemption, the gaming must meet a number of conditions, which are similar to those set out in section 40 of the 1968 Act, with the exception of the  restriction on linking games and of how to prescribe maximum stakes and prizes. 
There is no justification for discriminating between types of club or institute. It should be made clear in the Bill that the purpose of making regulations on different provisions for different classes is not to allow such discrimination—hence my opening references to political clubs. There should not be discrimination because they are political clubs or, indeed, among political clubs of different colours. 
Subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations 
''prescribing the maximum charge for the purposes of section 254(4).''
In other words, participation fees are not to exceed a maximum to be prescribed. Clause 255(3)(a) allows the making of 
''different provision for different classes of club or institute.''
Paragraph (c) makes provision 
''for different classes or descriptions of game''
and paragraph (d) provides 
''for different classes or description of fee.''
Everyone has to be awake to follow that flow. 
There is no indication of the basis on which different provisions will be made for different classes of club or institute. The amendment seeks to clarify that any policy setting a different maximum participation fee will not unfairly discriminate between classes of club or institute. It is suggested that the Secretary of State issue a statement under clause 220 regarding the basis on which such power will be exercised. 
This is in many ways a probing amendment to ensure that the Government have taken such matters into consideration. While there can be different regulations for varying classes of clubs, the difference should not be discriminatory towards a particular club. In other words, regulations governing a miners' welfare institute should not be excessively strict in comparison with, say, regulations governing a snooker club or any other commercial club. I should point out that my interest in the miners' welfare institute movement is purely to ensure that the one in Eckington survives, because it is one I visit. 
The Gaming Act 1968 granted the Secretary of State the right to specify differing sums for different clubs, so the power granted to the Secretary of State is at the heart of this clause and a carry-over from the 1968 Act. The amendment will ensure that the differences are within reason. The definitions of the three types of club are miners' welfare institutes, commercial clubs and members' clubs. I hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances and clarifications such that I may not wish to push the amendment to a Division.

John Pugh: May I add a footnote? There is some possibility of unfair discrimination, because clubs are often judged by their titles and not always what they seem. Miners' clubs are not frequented only by miners. Wheel-tappers and shunters clubs are presumably not full of  anybody at all anymore, as there are no wheel-tappers and shunters around.
Certain clubs such as social clubs in Blackpool, some of which the scrutiny Committee visited, were originally set up with the objective of providing cheap entertainment for people who could not attend first-class, commercial entertainment. Those clubs now provide first-class, commercial entertainment, and are effectively lucrative and thriving businesses. 
We also have the phenomenon of political clubs. In my constituency, the Birkdale Conservative club is full not of Conservatives, surprisingly, but of snooker players. [Interruption.]

Richard Page: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that one condition of joining a Conservative club is being a Conservative? If he has the names of anybody who enters those clubs who is not a Conservative, I would like to have them, because I would make sure that they were immediately barred.

John Pugh: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the net effect of that would be very empty clubs. Some people may be under a serious misapprehension—

Eric Illsley: This point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on the radio a few weeks ago. He said that if every member of the Conservative clubs in his constituency had voted Conservative, he would not have won the seat.

John Pugh: If I may add an anecdotal reference, there is a thriving Kirkby Liberal club, but the return from my constituency does not reflect the club membership. Similarly, Labour clubs are not universally full of socialists, although I suppose that the same could be said of the Labour party. There is a serious possibility that discrimination by category may not be that friendly to the interests of the clubs. [Interruption.]

Roger Gale: Order. In the spirit of seasonal good will, I ask the hon. Gentleman to come back to the amendment.

John Pugh: I was just pointing out that there is a real possibility of unfair discrimination.

Richard Caborn: This question depends on the type of discrimination that we are addressing, because the main purpose of the clause is to distinguish between different types of gambling, not political persuasion.
Amendment No. 348 addresses the maximum participation fees that clubs will be able to charge members to take part in certain forms of equal-chance gaming. The fees will be set by regulations. The amendment would ensure that such regulations do not discriminate unfairly among different classes of clubs or institutes. The regulations would never be used unfairly. The regulations should not discriminate between groups without proper justification. The purpose of the flexibility is to enable different participation fees for different types of clubs. For example, bridge and whist clubs enjoy higher allowances under current law. Without the flexibility, we would not be able to maintain that. 
Why have the power at all? Section 40 of the 1968 Act, as amended in 1973, allows different sums for  members' and commercial clubs and institutes. The power already exists, and that is why we are following it through. With that explanation about flexibility without discrimination, I hope that the hon. Member for Colchester will withdraw his amendment.

Bob Russell: I thank the Minister for clarifying and explaining how the Bill interprets fairness and discrimination. With that on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 255 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 256 and 257 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 258 - Club machine permit

Bob Russell: I beg to move amendment
No. 350, in clause 258, page 115, line 44, at end add— 
'(6) for the purposes of this section ''available for use'' shall mean a machine which is in fully functional order sited in accordance with its premises licence which is accessible at that time by at least one customer whether or not the machine is actually being played.'. 
If we were just decent people dealing with common sense, there would be no problem. However, unfortunately, we must recognise that lawyers in time to come will pore over this legislation. Common sense and the law do not necessarily always go together. We therefore propose new subsection (6). Any normal person would know what was meant by a machine being available for use, but there will be some who wish to interpret what is available and what is available for a machine in working order. The main purpose of our amendment is to provide a clear definition of ''available for use'', which can be important in interpreting the clause. We feel that the phrase is subject to opinion without a clear definition. It mainly clarifies the terms of the clause. The phrase ''available for use'' is not defined, and it should be clear that when a machine is damaged or not sited in part of the premises available to customers, it should not be included as part of the limit in subsection (2). 
Clause 226 provides that it is an offence to make a gaming machine available for use unless subject to an exception such as accordance with a club machine permit under clause 258. It should be noted that the offence is not simply making a gaming machine available, so the question arises why the words ''available for use'' have been included. Failure to define when a machine is available for use will lead to needless litigation; that definition should be in the Bill, but it is not, despite the phrase being used many times. Providing a definition in the clause is important because there is nowhere else to ascertain the meaning of the phrase. 
The problem with not having a definition is that the regulator can suggest that the operator is breaking the law if it has broken machines on the premises or additional working machines in a storeroom which are not intended to be used at that moment. An operator  may have three machines for use and one spare in the stockroom. The amendment would protect clubs from unforeseen circumstances, where they may have more machines than permitted but only three available for use in the permitted area at that time. We appreciate that such circumstances will be relatively rare, but the amendment would simply provide clarity in the clause.

Richard Caborn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the amendment. I do not think that it is necessary; indeed, in some respects it could do harm. It is self-evident that if a club or institute is offering a machine or machines for the use of their members, the machines must be regulated at all times and not just when someone is playing. That is why we deliberately chose the words ''available for use'', and we used them not only in this clause but wherever in the Bill we have referred to gaming machines being offered.
We do not want to include lots of detail on this point in the clause. If we did, there would be endless arguments with unscrupulous operators seeking to exceed their limit. We want to catch any gaming machine that someone makes available. Some of the examples suggested by the hon. Gentleman would not count as making a machine available. If a machine is damaged, or is not on the premises, it cannot be available for use, and would not come under the definition.

Bob Russell: If a club has three working machines, but a fourth one in reserve in the stockroom—in working order but not in use—in anticipation of one of the others breaking down, would it be illegal to keep that fourth machine on the premises in working order, albeit not in a licensed part of the building?

Richard Caborn: Yes, a premises could have a fourth machine in the stockroom. If it was not available for use by members, it would not fall under the definition. That would only happen when it became available for use. If a machine is damaged or locked away where it is not available, it is not available for use and is not covered by the clause. We want to catch any gaming machine that is made available. That clearly does not mean that someone has to be playing the machine before it counts. The question is whether someone could use it; if so, the operator is providing a gaming machine. If it were locked away in a stockroom, it would not be available.
I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question. I appreciate that such machines offer an important source of revenue for clubs offering entertainment. The clause allows quite properly allows them to offer three machines. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment, and given my explanation, I ask him to withdraw it.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister because we now have that confirmation on the record, and I hope that no one will want to enforce a provision that they perceive to be in the Bill, but which was, in reality, never intended. The Minister has explained that, if anybody did try to pull that stroke, it would be disallowed. On the basis of those reassurances, for which I am grateful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 258 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 259 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10 - Club Gaming Permits and Club Machine Permits

Amendments made: No. 174, in schedule 10, page 183, line 7, at end insert 
'( ) This paragraph does not apply to Scotland.'. 
No. 175, in schedule 10, page 187, line 7, at end insert 
'( ) In relation to premises in Scotland 
(a) sub-paragraph (5)(a) shall have effect as if it referred to a sheriff within whose sheriffdom the premises are wholly or partly situated, 
(b) sub-paragraph (5)(b) shall not have effect, 
(c) the reference in sub-paragraph (6) to the magistrates' court shall have effect as a reference to the sheriff, and 
(d) the reference in sub-paragraph (6)(e) to costs shall have effect as a reference to expenses.' 
No. 176, in schedule 10, page 188, line 11, leave out ': ''prescribed'''. 
No. 177, in schedule 10, page 188, line 13, at end insert 
'except that in paragraphs 1(2)(e), 14(2)(a) and 15(2) it means, where the application in question is made to a licensing authority in Scotland, prescribed by the Scottish Ministers by regulations. 
 This Schedule shall, in its application to Scotland, have effect as if references to a chief officer of police were references to a chief constable.'.—[Mr. Caborn.] 
Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.

Malcolm Moss: Having looked through schedule 10, I have a simple question. Much of it replicates the wording of the Licensing Act 2003, and the procedure for applying for references, appeals and hearings follows that of the Licensing Act.
Paragraph 10 talks about the fast-track procedure, which is for holders of club premises certificates. Sub-paragraph (1)(a) defines what that means. It says that 
''the applicant for a permit is the holder of a club premises certificate under section 72 of the Licensing Act 2003''.
I am trying to recollect what we discussed when considering the Act. I thought that most, if not all, clubs had to register under that Act if alcohol was being served in any shape or form. 
My question is: unless there are different types of gaming clubs, which do not need an alcohol licence because they do not serve alcohol—which I cannot believe is possible—why do we need the rest of schedule 10? I am trying to clarify the matter in my own mind. I am sure that there is a simple answer and that the Minister will have it at the tip of his tongue. 
I obviously welcome fast-tracking for those with a club premises certificate. They have been through the application to the local authority and all the procedures—being vetted and so on. All they want to do is add some gaming permits. I need to know which clubs might need to go through the long-winded procedure rather than taking the short circuit.

Richard Caborn: I shall give the full explanation of the schedule. It is a technical measure setting out, in  considerable detail, how to get the club gaming or club machine permit. I will highlight a couple of important points.
Paragraphs 1 to 3 deal with submitting the application. Those eligible to submit an application for a club gaming permit are members' clubs and miners' welfare institutes. Those organisations and commercial clubs can also apply for a club machine permit. 
Paragraph 10 provides an important fast-track procedure for clubs or institutes in England and Wales which have alcohol licences under section 72 of the Licensing Act 2003. That Act is due for implementation before the Gambling Bill can take effect. The fast-track procedure is available because a club or institute with an alcohol licence will, as the hon. Gentleman said, have been through a licensing process to obtain their club premises certificate. It would be not only onerous but unnecessarily costly to make such premises repeat the entire process. As a result, special truncated procedures are available to clubs and institutes with permission to serve alcohol on their premises. 
Permits will last for 10 years unless they cease to have effect because of lapse, surrender, cancellation or forfeiture. There is one exception to that 10-year rule: if a club has been given a permit under the fast-track procedure, the gaming permit will not expire unless the club premises certificate also ceases to have effect. 
Licensing authorities must have regard to any guidance issued by the gambling commission in making decisions about permits, and they must have regard to the licensing objectives in carrying out the functions that I outlined. The licensing authority can delegate functions in schedule 10 to a licensing committee, which can determine applications for permits, as well as cancelling them. Officers of the authority can also undertake certain functions on behalf of the committee. The schedule provides an appropriate and workable mechanism for the application and granting of permits. We are not forcing clubs to sell alcohol. I am talking about card clubs and—

Malcolm Moss: What clubs?

Richard Caborn: Card clubs. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to the schedule.

Malcolm Moss: I am not sure that I got the answer that I was looking for. Schedule 10 is about club machine permits, and card clubs do not come under that. Presumably, they are covered under club gaming permits. There may well be gaming clubs that do not sell alcohol, do not have entertainment and therefore do not need the club premises certificate that they would have to seek as clubs under the 2003 Act. I do not know how many clubs of that ilk there would be. I cannot believe that there are many. Perhaps the Minister can give the Committee an assessment of how many would be caught by the first bit of the schedule.

Richard Caborn: The heading of the schedule is ''Club Gaming Permits and Club Machine Permits'', and that  is what it addresses. The gaming part is as important as the machine permits. What I have said about cards comes into that. As I said, the schedule relates to gaming and machine permits.

Malcolm Moss: I am fully aware of that. I am just making the point that I would have thought that most clubs would be selling alcohol, would want some entertainment, and, if they had gaming machines, would have only a small number, all of which would be category C and no higher. I cannot believe that there are clubs that exist just for people to play a few machines. I do not know how many card clubs there are in the country; it cannot be that many. Yet in schedule 10, and in some clauses, there is a huge amount of regulation. What does it relate to? The Minister has not answered the question about the scale of the situation.

Richard Caborn: I shall try yet again to answer the question. We are talking about gaming. There may well be clubs that are set up for gaming—playing cards—which do not want to sell alcohol. All that we are doing is making provision for them in the Bill. It is as simple as that. I will read the schedule heading again: ''Club Gaming Permits and Club Machine Permits''. There may well be clubs whose members want to play cards or games of that nature, but who do not want the club to sell alcohol.

Mark Prisk: Will the Minister give way?

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman has only just come in. He came in halfway through my explanation.

Mark Prisk: The Minister is suggesting that we are flogging the issue, but it is important. We want to achieve clarity. What he is suggesting, given our earlier discussion about the need for members' clubs to be in a physical location, is that a group of people could have a game of cards at home and that would not be regulated, but if the same group met in what is defined as a members' club—a physical location—they would have to have a permit. That seems a peculiarity.

Richard Caborn: To be honest, if the hon. Gentleman had been here for the whole debate and did not keep nipping in and out, it would not be a bad thing. He wants clarity, but attendance would not be a bad idea either. If we are going into such detail, we all ought to be present while we discuss the schedule. The club has to get a permit depending on the type of game. I hope that that puts that issue to bed.

Mark Prisk: Although it is important to listen to every scintilla of the Minister's contribution and although I apologise to you, Mr. Gale, for missing the wisdom of that contribution, sadly the call of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was not as important as the call of nature.
Question put and agreed to. 
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.

Don Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I seek your guidance. This morning, when Mr. Pike was in the Chair, we were discussing part 5 of schedule 9, which once again dealt with the definitions of local authorities for planning purposes. I made the  point that I was still waiting for the reply to the questions that I asked when we discussed exactly the same issue on clause 2. I am happy to acknowledge to the Minister and to you, Mr. Gale, that I received the letter during the lunch period.
The reason for my point of order and my request for help is that, having read the detailed explanation provided by the Department, I am now even more firmly convinced that the unitary authority of Bath and North East Somerset council is not covered by the definition. Given that there will be no further opportunity during Committee to discuss it, I wonder if you can advise me, Mr. Gale, about how I might remedy what is clearly a problem.

Roger Gale: Although that is not a point of order for the Chair, I can say to the hon. Gentleman that he has been in the House long enough to know that there are other opportunities for him to seek clarification: first, by letter; secondly, by catching the eye of the Chair and raising the issue on Report or even on Third Reading.

Clause 260 - Bingo

Eric Illsley: I beg to move amendment No. 351, in clause 260, page 116, line 10, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 352, in clause 260, page 116, line 12, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'. 
No. 353, in clause 260, page 116, line 16, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'. 
No. 354, in clause 260, page 116, line 18, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'. 
No. 355, in clause 266, page 118, line 7, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'. 
No. 356, in clause 266, page 118, line 9, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'. 
No. 357, in clause 266, page 118, line 12, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'. 
No. 358, in clause 266, page 118, line 14, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'.

Eric Illsley: We now come to the most important part of the Bill so far. It is a pleasure to move the amendment on behalf of the clubs movement, and it is a pleasure also to speak in Committee, because one or two of us on the Government Back Benches have been slowly losing the will to live.
The amendments are straightforward—simply replacing the limit of £1,000 with £2,000. Although that is a doubling of the limit, it is still a very moderate figure, particularly when one takes into account some of the sums for casino and other forms of gambling that the Bill deals with. I will go into more detail as we go along, but the original declaration of the gambling review body left the figure at £1,000. When the Joint Committee scrutinised the draft Bill, it thought that the figure should have been £2,000, and recommended  that. The Government did not accept that, because they felt that such a figure bordered on commercial bingo, and decided to stick with £1,000. The point that I wish to make between now and 5.30 pm next Tuesday is that perhaps £2,000 is more appropriate. It does not relate to commercial bingo; in fact, far from it. 
In order to consider the matter in more detail, we must go back to the Budd report, which recommended the £1,000 limit. Chapter 8 of the report does not even mention bingo in clubs—not once. The only time that the report mentions bingo in relation to clubs is in the chapter about recommendations, and in particular from paragraph 25.15 onwards. In those paragraphs, the committee said that it understood that there were plans to introduce linked bingo to working men's clubs to be run by a commercial company, with prizes of up to £20,000. Obviously, that would be commercial bingo, but the report mentioned neither where that proposal came from nor how far advanced it was. 
The report continued by stating that a figure of that magnitude would be commercial bingo and that there should be some control over commercial bingo. No one would disagree with that. It went on to say: 
''We recommend that where the size of prizes for equal chance gaming (such as bingo) in pubs or clubs is beyond the limit of £1,000 per week, it should be regulated''.
Even the Budd committee itself started talking about a £20,000 commercial limit, but then put a limit on working men's clubs of £1,000. One must ask why the Budd committee did not recommend a limit of £10,000 or £5,000. Why did it propose a limit as low as £1,000? My view is that its comments on a linked game for a prize of £20,000 were a red herring to justify the limit of £1,000. 
We have to remember that that £1,000 is averaged out over seven days. Let us consider some of the larger working men's clubs, which are mainly in the north of England. We have referred to Conservative clubs, which I am sure run bingo competitions as well. I should say that I am probably the only man in Barnsley who has not been in the Barnsley Conservative club, such is the quality of its snooker table. Some of the clubs have a huge membership and £1,000 is easily achievable over several days of bingo in the course of seven days. A limit of £1,000 would mean that many clubs would have to go through the bureaucratic procedure of obtaining the relevant permits. So, I question the Budd report and why the committee came up with the figure of £1,000. It has misled people into fearing linked commercial games in every working men's club for a prize of £20,000, which probably should require a permit. 
The Budd report made other recommendations on commercial bingo. It said that there should be 
''no statutory limits on the stakes and prizes in bingo games''
and that 
''there should be no restrictions on the frequency of multiple bingo games''
It went on to say: 
''We recommend that roll-overs should be permitted''
in commercial bingo. The Budd committee effectively said that the commercial sector could have a free-for-all—what prize money it wants, roll-overs and the rest of it—but that the naughty working men's clubs in the north of England should be allowed prize money totalling only £1,000 over seven days. To coin a phrase, there is a touch of snobbery about some of this. For some reason, there is a theme of limiting working men's clubs to £1,000, but letting commercial organisations have what they want. It is worth bearing in mind that the Club and Institute Union and the Committee of Registered Clubs Associations did not give evidence to Budd—oral evidence perhaps—whereas the Bingo Association did. There is a slant towards the commercial game.

Tony Banks: Does my hon. Friend not think that perhaps there is a class issue involved—that somehow working men cannot handle that sort of money and will spend it only on ale and whippet food? Does he not think that the recommendations betray a certain class prejudice?

Eric Illsley: I am not sure that I would like to follow my hon. Friend down that route, but there is an air of paternalism and a theme that the commercial sector can have exactly what it has asked for—unlimited restrictions. There probably is a class issue as well; because they are working men's clubs, they have to have a £1,000 limit.
We started with the Budd committee suggesting £1,000, but that was rejected by the Government. The Government then came forward with the view, which they have since re-emphasised in correspondence, that £1,000 over seven days is bingo on a commercial scale. In the letter from Lord McIntosh, the Government had no idea how much bingo took place in working men's clubs, but they said that it was on a commercial scale. They could not quantify it—they never even tried to do so—but they wanted to impose a limit to £1,000. 
There is a very interesting section on bingo in the regulatory impact assessment, which says that there are 696 commercial bingo clubs in this country, which received a total stake of £1.381 million in the last year for which figures are available. That equates to a stake of about £16.90 per person. If one considers that a commercial bingo outlet has a membership of, say, 100 or 200, one can see how much is achievable on a single night—because that £16.90 will be staked in one evening. Let us compare that to £1,000 in seven days in a working men's club. The two figures are way apart. Even the regulatory impact assessment—the Government's own assessment—suggests that commercial bingo involves far larger figures than those covered by the £1,000 limit. 
One of the two big commercial enterprises in bingo is the Gala Bingo chain. I remember reopening the Gala Bingo club in my constituency after it had been refurbished. It was quite amusing as, while I was on stage trying to reopen the club, I was heckled for interrupting the bingo game. The heckler was well known, but I cannot say who it was. I was interrupting the game, so people were heckling like anything. A group was playing on stage and the lead singer helpfully turned to me and said, ''Be careful, sir,  there's a pyrotechnic in front of you.'' I said, ''Do you mean an indoor firework?'' He said, ''Yes''. It went off and for about 30 seconds I was staggering about the stage unable to see a thing because of smoke. 
The club had 26,000 members at the time that I reopened it. With the best will in the world, a working men's club will not have anywhere near that number. There are some big clubs but they do not have 26,000 members. That bingo club was for one small town in the north of England. Obviously, the bigger cities will have commercial bingo clubs with larger memberships. So, there is a great difference between working men's clubs and proper commercial bingo. 
The limit of £1,000 is obviously far too low. As I said, the Government's regulatory impact assessment tends to support that view, which brings us back to their subsequent rejection of it. The Club and Institute Union and the Committee of Registered Clubs Associations have said that they believe that a club playing bingo three or four times a week could easily exceed the £1,000 limit. The limit risks including far too many clubs in the requirement to obtain the requisite permits, which would put a financial and administrative burden on them. It also introduces an offence.

Joan Humble: Earlier, the Minister referred to light-touch regulation on category D machines. I wonder whether my hon. Friend wishes to argue that we need light-touch regulation in this case and that raising the limit to £2,000 could achieve that.

Eric Illsley: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill implements light-touch regulation for commercial premises, but uses the heavy hand of bureaucracy for working men's clubs. It is interesting that my hon. Friend intervened. As she knows, a television programme on BBC 1 helps me to understand the Gambling Bill: the programme about the casino in Blackpool. It is a toss-up as to who will get the casino licence first—the real Blackpool council, or Ripley Holden from the programme. We will have to wait and see. Yes, regulation should have been light touch, but the measure uses the heavy hand.
As a consequence of the requirement, many clubs will have to obtain permits or licences for small-scale bingo, and we will be criminalising club members who inadvertently fail to renew or obtain that permit or allow their prize figure to exceed £1,000. They will be guilty of an offence under subsection (7). We should move those clubs out of that bracket. It is worth bearing in mind that there is no known history of abuse or irregularity in bingo; it is small-scale, equal-chance gaming.

Bob Russell: In light of that last observation, will the hon. Gentleman hazard a guess as to why the Budd committee and Lord McIntosh seemingly know more about how working class bingo halls operate than do the Committee of Registered Clubs Association and the Bingo Association? If there is elitism, as he suggests, and he may well be right, can he explain  why the new Labour Government are siding with the toffs and not with the workers?

Eric Illsley: Well, they are siding with the Budd committee, I suppose. I cannot explain that, but the Government must be guided by the Budd report. My point is that perhaps that report, which has provided the basis for this figure, has taken far too much notice of what it has been told by the Bingo Association about the perceived threat from working men's clubs and small-scale bingo. If one is a representative of the Bingo Association or the bingo clubs, the commercial side of the industry, one will try to cut off every avenue of competition in every way possible in order to maximise one's club's membership. As I said earlier, it is heavy-handed, because with even a £2,000 limit, working men's clubs will not provide any real competition to the commercial enterprises, especially if the Budd recommendations for commercial bingo—roll-overs and bigger stakes—are introduced. Even with that limit, which the CIU and the Committee of Registered Clubs Association have suggested, the activity does not impinge on what commercial bingo clubs have to offer.

Malcolm Moss: We are very sympathetic to much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but, if he is going to press the amendment to a vote, it would be helpful before we come to a final decision if he could take the Committee through the present regulations, if they exist, and the sorts of limits that such clubs reach within seven days. Where does the figure of £2,000 come from? Is it like the figure of eight regional casinos—plucked out of the air?

Richard Caborn: Come, come—it is scientific.

Malcolm Moss: Or is it scientific, as the Minister says? It would help us come to the right conclusion if we knew the reasons for the £2,000 limit, the current limit for clubs and where the pressures come from. If no regulations pertain to them, they may be trading at £5,000, £6,000 a week—who knows? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could enlighten us.

Eric Illsley: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman asked me, because the short answer is that, like Lord McIntosh, I have not got a clue. It is an important point, however. No one knows; there is not enough research into the matter to suggest a figure of £1,000 or £2,000. That is one point that I am making: the Budd committee made the recommendation for a limit of £1,000, but only it knows why. When it came to bingo in working men's clubs, Budd started referring to that fear of a £20,000 commercial gain and went on to recommend the limit of £1,000. For the life of me, I cannot understand why it went from a fear of a £20,000 gain to a £1,000 limit. If there had been any evidence that there would be a £20,000 prize for linked games in working men's clubs, it would suggest that the limit would have been nearer to that prize. That is one of the problems on which we are working.

Malcolm Moss: I think that we are getting there. It would be logical to conclude that if the clubs associations are happy with a £2,000 limit, it would suggest that they are currently trading below that figure during a particular week, which would give them  a comfort zone and ensure that they were not caught by the clause.

Clive Efford: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. It would be helpful if we could have some guidance. It has just occurred to me that some of us are members of CIU clubs, and I wonder whether we should declare an interest.

Roger Gale: I imagine that hon. Members' interests are declared in the register, but it is always helpful to the Committee for any Member to declare an interest prior to speaking. If any hon. Member seeks to catch my eye and has an interest to declare, that would be the moment to declare it.

Eric Illsley: I would like to declare an interest, Mr. Gale.

Richard Caborn: My hon. Friend was supposed to do that before he started.

Roger Gale: Order. That does not mean that the hon. Gentleman has to go back to the beginning of his speech.

Eric Illsley: It slipped my memory that I should have declared that I am a member of the Barnsley trades and Labour club.

Joan Humble: I have to say that, as a woman, I am not a member of any working men's club. The explanatory notes refer to the fact that with parliamentary approval the Secretary of State could amend the £1,000 figure. If the Minister is unwilling to accept my hon. Friend's amendment, will he perhaps look to the future, when the gambling commission or some other body could consider the matter and report back to the Government? The Secretary of State could reconsider the figure to ensure that there is fair play for working men's clubs and other institutions covered by the clause.

Eric Illsley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I would not want to adopt such a negative view because I am optimistic that the Minister will have some positive news when he responds. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right: if the Government do not want to increase the limit at this point, it would not be difficult to obtain research showing the level of activity in working men's clubs—the number of people playing bingo is easily recordable—and the type of prizes given.
I return to the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) that the CIU would accept a figure of £2,000 because it feels that that would exclude the majority of clubs from the requirement to have a permit. Some of the bigger clubs would still exceed the £2,000 figure, but they could carry on with the activity if they obtained the relevant permit.

John Pugh: What this debate seems to lack is a clear, precise definition of commercial bingo. A contrast is being drawn between club bingo and commercial bingo, and it is alleged that bingo in which stakes go above £1,000 would be virtually the same as commercial bingo. In one sense, that is not true because the profits go to the club and not to a limited company. Commercial or virtual commercial bingo—and I have some sympathy with the industry in this  respect—should be defined as such when it is judged by the commercial bingo sector to be in competition with it. The hon. Gentleman resented that approach, but I cannot see any other obvious approach, other than plucking a figure out of thin air.

Eric Illsley: That is a reasonable assumption to make. I am not sure that I resent the comparison—it is probably right—but I wanted to show that when we talk of the commercial bingo sector, the figures are vastly higher than they are in working men's clubs.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a lack of available information on the issue to justify either party's standpoint. The Government have no information or research to justify the figure of £1,000, and little information is coming from the clubs to counter the point. The nearest definition of commercial bingo is in chapter 3.3 of the regulatory impact assessment, which states: 
''There were 696 commercial bingo clubs operating in Great Britain, at 31 March 2004.''
There is no definition of commercial bingo other than that reference to clubs. It does not tell us how many members there are, what the stakes are, what is the value of the prizes or anything else. We have a ballpark figure of £1.3 billion for the amount of money staked with 81.5 million admissions, which gives an average stake per person of £16.90. Again, that is probably higher than in working men's clubs where bingo tickets probably cost 50p, or £1 at most. There are huge differences between the figures involved, but no definition of what constitutes commercial bingo.

Mark Prisk: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point on what may appear to be a narrow issue, but it is an important one. Will he confirm a point that the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) rightly highlighted—that the amendment applies not only to working men's clubs but to other clubs of a similar character?

Eric Illsley: Yes, I can confirm that. Perhaps a better phrase would be ''social clubs'', which would include working men's clubs.

Ben Chapman: Can my hon. Friend confirm that that would extend to, for example, Royal Air Force Association clubs, Victory clubs, ex-services clubs and so on?

Eric Illsley: Yes, I am sure that such clubs would fall within the definition, as well as Conservative clubs and all sorts of social clubs.
Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for Southport, Budd did not take any substantial evidence on why a £1,000 limit should be introduced. Its report simply refers to the possibility of a £20,000 linked game. That is the only justification in the Budd report for a £1,000 cap. The review body did not visit, say, 10 working men's clubs, and take the average number of tickets sold to arrive at a figure. We are simply told that there is a possibility of a £20,000 linked-prize game of bingo, and a figure of £1,000 was chucked in to hold that figure down. 
I said earlier that there is no known history of abuse or irregularity in bingo in social clubs, and there is unlikely to be because there is no facility to abuse club  bingo. It is well monitored and well stewarded, and it takes place in private social clubs. All the activities in such clubs are for the benefit of the membership because they are not allowed to make a profit. Any money that they make over and above their expenditure is returned to the club for the benefit of the club alone. No one is profiteering or making money from it other than the club itself. There is no private gain. Yet, the regulatory and financial burden that could be imposed on the majority of clubs by the £1,000 limit could put some of those clubs in a difficult position and prevent them from continuing. We heard in the Committee this afternoon that almost all of us in the Room benefit from a social club, working men's club or political party club in our area. 
I hope that I have made the point that commercial bingo and bingo in working men's clubs and social clubs are miles apart in terms of the figures involved, the stakes, the prize money and so on. I believe that a limit of £1,000 over seven days is far too low, and the figure should be doubled to relieve the burden on those clubs that face having to obtain a permit in future. 
Another aspect is that, as I understand it, the same clause would cover bingo in pubs. Bingo in pubs might not be as common as bingo in social clubs—it is only on a limited scale at the moment—but the problems facing the pub industry are such that it is looking for other ways of maximising its income. It is now competing with, and losing money to, fixed-odds betting terminals in betting shops and it might be looking to use bingo as a way of increasing takings in pubs. The British Beer and Pub Association supports the amendment because it knows that it will benefit its pubs as well. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will have some good news for me when he comes to respond.

Richard Page: If I could slide in between the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on the left and the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) on the right wing, we would have a political spectrum of unity on this matter. I declare at once the life membership that was given to me by Workington Conservative club—for a short time, Workington saw the light and had a Conservative Member of Parliament. When I was their Member of Parliament, I visited an enormous number of clubs: miners' clubs, an Orange club, the Royal British Legion—the list goes on. There was even a Labour club, if I remember rightly.
I would not want to underestimate the social importance of those clubs to the cohesiveness of the area and to character building in that regard. To see them damaged, to see them go, would be a disservice. They are part of the glue that holds a society together. All their activities are well known to us, but there is also the neighbourliness and social support that comes through. If a member is in a little trouble, the others rally round. I hardly think that we shall see such cohesiveness and support when people go to their mega-casino. I cannot see a mega-casino worrying about your personal circumstances if you run into  some form of trouble—not that you would run into any trouble, Mr. Gale; I am talking about members of a mega-casino who may run into trouble. 
It is warm and comforting to go to those clubs. Of course, as the Member of Parliament, I was made instantly welcome wherever I went in Workington. I felt welcome. I would not want those clubs to be put in peril, but that is happening. They are under pressure. There are so many different commercial attractions to take people away from them. The clubs want to keep going for all the reasons that I have described and they also need to keep their membership costs down. Doing that means that they must run a series of other activities. I will not go through all those activities, because Members know them. Suffice it to say they include Christmas savings clubs, darts matches and competitions with other clubs, and even, as the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central said, snooker, which is quite a common attraction for pulling in revenue among members. I am sure that nobody wants to see clubs reduced into thousands of mini bingo halls, but as the hon. Gentleman said, if we just consider £1,000 as a total stake, and subtract from that moneys that will be paid out in prize money, the amount left will hardly challenge the Rank empire in the bingo world. We are dealing with peanuts. 
I was on the scrutiny Committee, along with the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), and I can say quite cheerfully that we carried out no analysis on the £1,000 figure, but we had a gut feeling that it was far too low and thought that it should be doubled. We did not receive an enormous number of representations on the figure, but we felt that doubling it to £2,000 would be a step in the right direction. It would help the clubs to continue, and aid social cohesiveness. It hurts me to say this, but I will support the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central if he presses his amendment to a Division. I will be with him in voting for clubs, as a good, working Conservative.

Clive Efford: I support the attempt of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central to get the Government to move on this issue. People join clubs for a variety of reasons. When I stood as a councillor in 1986 I recall talking to number-takers outside the polling station. One chap said, ''I don't know what I'm doing here. I've just been in there and voted Labour, but I'm collecting numbers for the Tories because they won't let me play snooker in the club unless I collect some.'' That was a long time ago, and I am sure it has all changed now.
I declare an interest as a member of the Eltham Hill working men's club and an honorary lifelong member of the Woolwich Catholic club. The Budd report took a very curious view of working men's club in my opinion. I recall having to lobby to get the Budd report to delete its recommendation that higher value gaming machines should be removed from working men's clubs. That recommendation seemed to be based on anecdotal evidence that the clubs could not manage the machines properly, and that children would play on them and become encouraged to gamble. There was no solid evidence to back up the assumption that they were not capable of managing those machines, and  there is an element of classism, because the Budd committee went nowhere near those establishments. 
The clubs are extremely well run and cases of rules being broken are few and far between, and are often dealt with very swiftly. Clubs that I know in my area are extremely well run and make an enormous contribution to the local community by turning round the money that they make in bingo, and from gaming machines and the sale of alcohol. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central is very moderate, and I hope that the Government will listen on Report, if not today.

Nick Hawkins: I also support the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central and I will support him if the matter is pressed to a Division. I declare an interest as a life member of both the Stanley and the Tyldesley Conservative clubs in Blackpool. I echo everything that has been said by hon. Members of all parties about the enormously important work that such clubs do for the community as a whole. One has to remember that as well as the kind of clubs that we have talked about so far, such as Eagle clubs, RAF clubs, British Legion clubs, working men's clubs, miners' clubs, Labour clubs, Conservative clubs—

Bob Russell: Liberal clubs.

Nick Hawkins: Liberal clubs, too. One has to remember that many communities comprised of particular groups that have moved to the UK have fantastically successful clubs. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood may know, as I do, the Polish club in the centre of Blackpool that serves the whole area. I used to go there regularly because there were many invitations from the Polish community to all those involved in public life in Blackpool and Wyre and Fylde, regardless of party affiliation. It is important that communities that have moved to the UK have clubs to use as a centre.
One of the Polish airforce squadrons had been stationed during the war at what was then the RAF station at Squiresgate airfield, which is now Blackpool airport. As a result, there was a huge Polish community in and around Blackpool. I was used to working with a Polish community because I grew up in Bedford, which also had a big Polish community and successful Polish clubs. There are clubs of every conceivable nationality. I mentioned the one in Blackpool because I know that it had a successful bingo operation, but many such clubs depend for their fundraising on operating activities such as bingo. I would not want that to be damaged. In addition to the types of club that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central and other hon. Members talked about, the clubs representing minority communities are fantastically important for our society. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me.

Tony Banks: I declare my interest: I am a member of the Reform club. [Laughter.] I find it extraordinary that the Minister thinks that a matter of hilarity. On this occasion, the Reform club will stand shoulder to shoulder with the working men's club in Barnsley. I add my support to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central. There is something patronising in the measure that it  opposes—that somehow working men and women cannot handle anything more than £1,000; that that should be enough to feed the whippets and buy a new black cat.
Under the circumstances, I think that the bourgeois Budd attitude is not one for the Minister, who is a flinty son of the soil. He will undoubtedly be sympathetic to my hon. Friend's amendment. I add my strong support and that of all the members of the Reform club to my hon. Friend's amendment.

John Pugh: I also support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central. I think that he seriously underestimates his argument. He has, in a sense, provided a criterion that would work in determining what the figure should be—£1,000, £2000, £3,000, £4,000 or whatever. What we have been searching for is a way to draw a legal difference that would work in practice and henceforward. One can do that in terms of volume, ratio of profits or, though it will not be too efficacious in this case, by what the money is used for at the end of the day—whether it is ploughed back into the club or into somebody's bank balance.
The clear fact is that, as it stands, there is a legal difference between the commercial and the voluntary club. That is defined by their objectives. There is no problem with that. We are trying to find a further criterion that enables us to set a figure. I suggest that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central gave us such a rationale in what he said. It seems to me that the commercial sector has no complaint if a voluntary club is not in a position to act as a serious commercial competitor. If it is the case that the normal commercial club requires a turnover of at least £20,000—that that is the norm—then a club that is working on stakes of £1,000, £2,000, or even slightly higher, is not a serious commercial competitor. The commercial sector could not in those circumstances complain about that threshold being higher.

Richard Caborn: I declare an interest. I am a member of the CIU and president of the Sheffield trades and labour club. So, I have an interest but I am putting that aside and will be absolutely objective in my reply, which will, I hope, be an acceptable conclusion to the matter.
The arguments have been put powerfully by Members of all parties. A number of hon. Members have referred to the debate and discussion we had on returning gaming machines in clubs to a jackpot of £250. The most powerful point in prosecuting that argument was the good that was done with the profits from those machines, which sent some kids off to the seaside for the summer and ensured that members of the old age pensioners club got their lunch and a couple of free pints at Christmas. I know that because I am a member of a club. 
I remember when the discussion was taking place about the £250 jackpot—I think that Sir Alan Budd recommended the £25 machines. I go to Sheffield Trades and Labour club on a Sunday evening at about quarter past 9 most weeks when I am in Sheffield. I always have the same table and there are always  roughly the same people there. We have long discussions. On this occasion, when the provisions were being discussed and I had responsibility for gambling, I walked into the club at 9.15 on a Sunday night and saw three secretaries from adjoining working men's clubs. I thought, ''Well, they haven't come here to buy me a drink this evening.'' When I sat down to talk to them, they strongly advised me that the £250 machines ought to be brought back and that Sir Alan Budd's recommendations ought to be rejected. They were powerful arguments and I brought them back to the House and deployed them along with many others. We came to the conclusion that Budd was wrong on that occasion.

Bob Russell: Will the Minister say again what night he goes to his club, so that I can make an appointment?

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman was not listening. It is the Sheffield trades and Labour club, not the Liberal club. If he wants to be a member, I will make sure that he gets a form, but he will have to pay the £5 entry fee.

Bob Russell: Absolutely. That is no problem.

Richard Caborn: I will arrange that. At least it will mean more income for the club.
The arguments that have been made this afternoon are powerful. In terms of consistency, the issue is also about future-proofing. We want to ensure that all the elements of the Bill are future-proof. There is an element of future-proofing in considering moving from a £1,000 limit. 
As a realistic politician, I also know that there are times during the discussions on a Bill when we have to concede, because if we do not, we are likely to get beaten anyway. It looks as though that might be the case this afternoon. One could call it a tactical retreat, future-proofing or acknowledging the power of the arguments. However, I genuinely believe that we ought to revisit the issue, particularly in light of what the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee said. Arguments have been deployed this afternoon by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. If my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central will withdraw his amendment, I will consider returning to the issue.

Malcolm Moss: Will the Minister clarify how much a club would have to pay out on any game of bingo? If it took £1,000 in a week, how much of that would be retained by the club? If it is a fixed proportion, we can work how much would be retained with a £2,000 limit. It will be peanuts. I do not see the problem with accepting the amendment.

Richard Caborn: The calculation, in broad terms and as far as I understand it, is that the club retains a maximum of about 10 or 20 per cent. Most working men's clubs pay out about 80 or 85 per cent. of the takings. I do not think that most of them would get anywhere near the £2,000 payout. My club probably has three or four games of bingo a night and the prize for each is probably about £20. Let us say that the total is £100 a night. I would guess that we are talking  about a payout of £700 or £800 a week. That is a club with a membership of 600 or 650 people. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central is referring to the bigger clubs, of which there are some around. However, I do not think that that will threaten the commercial side at all.
We will reflect on the issue and, if my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment, I hope to return with an amendment on Report that will probably follow what the Committee is saying and make the limit nearer to £2,000 than the £1,000 in the Bill.

Eric Illsley: I am grateful to the Minister and also to hon. Members for their expressions of support. My right hon. Friend is right to say that there is considerable sympathy towards the amendments and towards the clubs' view that there should be a higher limit of £2,000. What worries me is when he says that he will return on Report with a figure nearer to £2,000. I ask him to return with a figure of £2,000.
Given the interest that the amendment has generated in the Committee, I am sure that it will generate the same sort of interest from hon. Members on both sides of the House on Report, mainly because of hon. Members' involvement in clubs in their constituencies. In the interests of pursuing the matter, I am happy to withdraw the amendment in the hope that my right hon. Friend will return with an amendment specifying £2,000 on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hon. Members: No.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Amendments proposed: No. 352, in clause 260, page 116, line 12, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'. 
No. 353, in clause 260, page 116, line 16, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'. 
No. 354, in clause 260, page 116, line 18, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'.—[Mr. Illsley.] 
 Question put, That the amendments be made.
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Malcolm Moss: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. May I just get this clear in my own mind? We have now voted to change £1,000 to £2,000 in one instance in the Bill and to reject the consequential amendments to later references to £1,000. Where does that leave the Bill?
Mr. Caborn rose—

Roger Gale: Order. Let me respond to the hon. Gentleman, and then if the Minister wishes to comment further he may do so.
The hon. Gentleman is not entirely correct. The Committee has chosen to reject amendments Nos. 352 to 354. There are further consequential amendments to clause 266, which, properly, I should put to the Committee when we reach that clause. They have not yet been rejected. I do not know whether that answers the hon. Gentleman's question, but it is the answer that he is getting.

Richard Caborn: We heard what the Committee said, and it voted for the £2,000 limit. If it will be helpful, and members of the Committee agree, we will table properly worded amendments to the Bill which will deliver the £2,000 limit and make the necessary consequential amendments.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Roger Gale: Order. The Committee has heard what the Minister said. That, of course, is a matter of record and it will be taken as it should be in good faith. I have no power, I fear, to undo what the Committee has chosen to do. That is a matter to be dealt with on Report, but it can be done.

Richard Page: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I am confused. The Minister, in his summing up, said that he would go away and think about the figure, but he has now committed himself to £2,000, the figure that he just asked the Committee to reject. I really am completely and utterly at a loss.

Roger Gale: That is not strictly a point of order for the Chair. However, I heard, and therefore I assume that the rest of the Committee heard clearly, the Minister indicate that, taking cognisance of the Committee's vote, that was what he proposed to do.

Eric Illsley: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. In view of the current confusion, as we have a figure of £2,000 in one part of the Bill and a figure of £1,000 in the remainder, at what point could I ask to withdraw the amendments to clause 266, rather than cause any further confusion?

Roger Gale: The amendments to clause 266 have not been moved. As and when they are called, the hon. Gentleman simply has to say, ''Not moved.'' That will not be a problem, but I have no power to overturn a properly carried vote of the Committee.
Clause 260, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 261 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 262 - Alcohol licence

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Ann McKechin: I seek clarification from the Minister on the definition of an alcohol licence under the Licensing Act 2003. That legislation refers only to England and Wales. I see no reference to a licence granted under the equivalent Scottish legislation, the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. If my understanding is correct, will the Minister confirm that he will table an appropriate amendment on Report?

Nick Hawkins: In order to make life easier for the Minister and his hon. Friend, I shall immediately give way to the Minister to enable him to put what he has just said on the record.

Richard Caborn: The answer is yes.

Nick Hawkins: I hope that that was a helpful introduction to what I am about to say. Mr. Gale, in your absence from the Chair this morning, and in Mr. Pike's presence, the Minister and I had a somewhat acrimonious exchange and I withdrew an imputation that I had made. I want to state for the record that I hope to pursue the issue that I sought to raise this morning, but in a less confrontational way.
We have now reached the clauses relating to pubs. We shall come to the detail when we discuss subsequent clauses and amendments, particularly those to clauses 263 and 267 and the new clauses consequent thereon. When the Minister spoke on Tuesday I had the impression that he was talking about recent consultations that the Government had had with the British Beer and Pub Association. I was not alone in that. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire pointed out in a helpful intervention just before lunch that the Minister may have been referring to much earlier consultations with that association. Both the BBPA and members of this Committee accept that those earlier consultations took place. The basis of my query this morning was a letter that I had today and a briefing that I received last night, which says: 
''Neither the BBPA nor any other representative body as far as we are aware have been consulted on these new clauses and we have had no opportunity at this stage to improve their drafting.''
There is clearly a significant issue about this part of the Bill, and the way in which the Government will seek in later clauses to amend it, concerning how pubs will be affected. My concern, as the founder and joint treasurer of the all-party beer group, in which I have been consistently involved, is to ensure that pub  businesses in my constituency and in every other constituency in the land are not damaged. We should ensure that the link between the recent Licensing Act—this clause relates to alcohol licences—and the Bill is based on joined-up government and not on any confusion. I shall come back to the details when we debate subsequent clauses, but I felt, as this is the first clause that deals with alcohol licences, that it would be helpful to put that on the record.

Eric Illsley: The clause defines an alcohol licence and an on-premises alcohol licence, but there is no such thing as an on-premises alcohol licence. As a consequence of the Licensing Act 2003, that does not exist. I assume that that is why subsection (b) reads,
'' 'on-premises alcohol licence' means a premises licence''.
That refers to a new system of licensing that has not yet been introduced, because the Licensing Act does not come into effect until February. Can my right hon. Friend say a few words about the confusion that is likely to be caused by the difference between the definitions in the Licensing Act and those in the clause? There is some confusion in the description of the licences and in the definition of pubs and restaurants, which we will come to in the next clause.

Richard Caborn: To answer the questions from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), I said earlier this week:
''Further to that point of order, Mr. Gale. I apologise to the Committee. We have not had a lot of time in which to get these amendments and new clauses out. We have done so as quickly as possible and we have consulted the British Beer and Pub Association. Nevertheless, I accept the comments that have been made. The usual channels may agree that it will be convenient to stop a little short of the time allocated to allow for reflection and further debate. I hope that the usual channels will be able to deliver that.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 7 December 2004; c. 395.]
I want to put it on record that my officials have been in contact with a number of organisations, including the BBPA. Indeed, my officials telephoned the BBPA on Monday about the amendment. We have also had a number of meetings with the association on other topics during the past few weeks. During those  telephone calls, we explained what the amendments did, which is to provide a clear application procedure with the 2003 Act in mind. We also let the BBPA know that we were willing to listen and to discuss its proposed amendments and those consequential to them. We have taken serious account of what the BBPA said on behalf of its members, and my officials had a very useful dialogue with the association. 
I was apologetic in my remarks at column 395 of Hansard on Tuesday, and I believe that the words used by the hon. Gentleman this morning about my being misleading and giving wrong information to the Committee or the House were totally unjustified and wrong. We have been in dialogue with the BBPA and we have taken on board much of its advice, which I hope will make for a good Bill at the end of the day. I am very surprised indeed at the hon. Gentleman's allegations this morning. They concerned comments made at a function on the Terrace of the House of Commons last night when senior officials of the BBPA made allegations against both my officials and my office. I do not accept those allegations. We have had dialogue with the BBPA, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes back to those people to ask them exactly what they were talking about and who they were referring to. If they will please give chapter and verse, we will respond in the public domain. We will not be responding at private functions. 
Turning to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central about the 2003 Act, clause 262 contains the key definitions for clauses 263 to 268. In particular, it defines ''alcohol licence'' and ''on-premises alcohol licence'' by reference to the 2003 Act, which, as he rightly said, will become operational in February 2005. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 262 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Watson.] 
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Four o'clock till Tuesday 14 December at half-past Nine o'clock.